The contingencies of partnership. Experiences from the training reform agenda in Australian manufacturing
| Published date | 01 June 2002 |
| Date | 01 June 2002 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450210428471 |
| Pages | 321-334 |
| Author | Richard Cooney |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The
contingencies of
partnership
321
Employee Relations,
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2002, pp. 321-334.
#MCB UP Limited, 0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450210428471
The contingencies of
partnership
Experiences from the training reform
agenda in Australian manufacturing
Richard Cooney
Department of Management, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
Keywords Partnering, Education, Training, Skills
Abstract This paper examines the development of an antecedent model of social
partnership, the social ``accord'' employed by the Labor Government in Australia during
the period 1983-1996. The specific focus of the paper is upon the implementation of the
Training Reform Agenda (TRA) in Australian manufacturing. The TRA was designed to
provide for the upskilling of existing employees and the enhanced vocational preparation of
new employees. This was a joint objective of government, business and union policy and one
designed to encourage the growth of high-wage, high-skill industries. The achievement of this
objective was, however, limited. Social partnership, in the case of the TRA, proved to be a way
of legitimating a work change process which delivered greater gains to employers than it did
to unions and employees. The partnerships formed under the aegis of the TRA had a limited
lifespan and represented a contingent form of relationship between the partners, rather than
a seachange in relations.
Introduction
The Training Reform Agenda (TRA) was one element of a larger process of
``social accord'' implemented by successive Labor governments in Australia
during the period 1983-1996 (Beilharz, 1994; Carney, 1988). The process of
social accord was a nascent form of social partnership, bringing together
government, community and business to achieve consensus on a broad range
of social objectives. These objectives were identified at a number of federal and
state ``summit'' meetings and policy prescriptions were then developed in
conjunction with representative interest groups.
The architects of the accord process saw the emergence of a national
consensus to solve Australia's economic and social problems as the beginning
of a seachange in social relations, with consensus politics becoming an
institutionalised part of the landscape (Hawke, 1979). The development of a
social accord was not seen to be a short-term partnership between the state and
interest groups but rather represented a long-term change in the relations
between government and social interests.
As with many of the hopes raised by the accord process, however, this
proved to be illusory and the progress of the accord can best be seen as a series
of shifting partnerships between government, unions and business. Each of
these parties to the social accord had their own view of what accord meant.
While preferring the language of consensus to that of partnership, the accord
process prefigured some of the policy, many of the mechanisms, and much of
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial